W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: weekly call for agenda items

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:45:59 +0200
Message-ID: <00a301c29132$084ef5e0$149316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


> Well, make it more concrete. The value space consists of XML 
> thingies. Can there be cases of two different XML literal strings 
> denoting the same one of those thingies...

Well, it depends on what those thingies are.

I think it is far more intutive and useful to have those XML thingies
be XML Infosets, in which case, multiple canonical serializations can
map to the same Infoset, just as "010" and "10" map to the same 
integer value.

Semantically, in the XML world, it's the Infoset that matters, not
the XML serialization, even if canonical, so as an implementor
concerned with whether two XML Literals are "equivalent", it is their
correlation to a specific Infoset that I am wanting to test, not
whether they happen to (for whatever reason) have the same 
lexical representation.

This is no different than caring only about whether two typed literals
both denote the integer ten, not whether they both have the same
lexical form "10".

Note that "canonical XML" does not mean "canonical lexical form" from
the viewpoint of XML Infosets.

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 02:46:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:07 EDT